
Innovators Are Older Than Ever 221
GrokSoup writes "A new study shows that great achievements in science are produced by older innovators today than they were a century ago. Using data on Nobel Prize winners and great inventors, the author shows that the age at which noted innovations are produced has increased by approximately 6 years over the 20th Century. This runs contrary to accepted wisdom in science, which says that most scientists peak in their 20s. It is also welcome news to those of us who have not yet, ahem, done our Nobel-winning work."
Well of course... (Score:4, Funny)
Well yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well yes (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about "memorization" - it's about learning, and there's an awful lot to learn to be prepared to work in a modern scientific field.
Re:Well yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
One thing that would help immensely would be personalized education after some basics (like grammar school). Some are better at sciences, some are better at humanities, some are lost cause. Let everyone progress into their best at earlier age. Even if it means that you will have engineers that don't know Shakespeare or hi
Re:Well yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. And vice versa. My interest in programming greatly helped me working in biotechnology, for example.
People should of course specialize, but specialization doesn't mean ignoring the whole world around you. This is a disaster for society already (here in Italy we have to vote for a referendum on stem cell research next week: you can imagine how much even learned people misunderstand the problem) Kids can and should simply learn much more at school than today. Stupidity is incurable, but ignorance not.
Moreover, most interesting things in science today happen at the interfaces between knowledge fields. The world of science would be much poorer in a world like the one you seem to want.
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
In 4th grade we had a special program going on, if you joined you wouldn't have any report cards, and ALL work would be done at your own pace. I went from doing multiplication to advanced algebra in that 1 year. What's more was it was FUN! I l
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
Re:Well yes (Score:2, Interesting)
I went to one of the top 10 high schools in the US and many of my friends were taking advanced placement classes like advanced calculus (at UNC) but most of the students only ended up with one year of calculus, if that.
At most US high schools, the standard of educations is lower than that, and most students do not get calculus until they are in college. Mos
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
Re:Well yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Current mass education systems are far more successfull at turning out mindless sheep that simply accept what they are told than fundamentally grounded eggheads that push the edges of our knowledge. Basic math, calc and physics do not take years upon years. For someone that is motivated and interested, they can be picked up in days, weeks at the most.
To me the modern classroom is like the equivalent of those A++ certification classes. They cost alot, teach you nothing and give you a stamp of approval that only means a damn thing to HR weenies.
The average age of ground breaking work is going up not because it takes that long to grasp the fundamentals. But because we have a system in place that blocks most from having any reasonable chance to learn, or more importanly apply, those fundamentals before going through a monolitic education process unable to adapt to the needs of the gifted student.
This is why... (Score:2)
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clark
Re:Well yes (Score:4, Interesting)
www.medicalacoustics.com
It generates low frequency sound using airflow turbulence and a reed / flapping flag hybrid. It took 18 years.The FDA trials are almost done.
I'm 57.
Shrug.
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
s/athsma/asthma/
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
Re:Well yes (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that you are equating the idea of hidebound mentality with the tools necessary to do basic scientific work. If you have good teachers you can obtain the latter without getting caught up in the former. If not, well, you are probably likely to get the former without the latter.
Re:Well yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well yes (Score:3, Interesting)
And more seriously, to actually invent something complicated or make significat advancement of science you need to know a lot. Think about, say, genetic engineering, quantum physics or nanotechnology. If I were to try to propose something in these fields I'd probably be laughed out because it will be either completely wrong or blatantly obvious to specialists. I know very little about these fields.
As the sum
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
~phil
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
Just like a minefield, innovations can blow up in your face when some other company wants your innovation's market and holds any patents on anything remotely or questionably relevant.
Re:Well yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, to even IDENTIFY new phenomena required a thorough understanding of past work. Even more importantly, to spot contradictions in past work requires deep understanding of said past efforts.
There really is no shortcut. And since there is more past effort to learn, the longer (perhaps) it takes to reach ones peak.
Re:Well yes (Score:3, Informative)
If you're getting B's and A's, then don't worry about it too much. 30+ years of experience taught me that I don't want the A+ memorizers. I want the folks that easily made the B+'s and A's but missed perfect marks because they got so passionately caught u
Re:Well yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Often heard, but not true. In fact, wheel re-invention is extremely useful.
Wheel reinvention provides a critical opportunity for the advance of science and technology, by creating an opportunity to find a better way, and to detect previously undiscovered vulnerabilities.
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
In fact, wheel re-invention is extremely useful.
True, it is called re-search after all.
---
Keep your options open!
That's not what "reinventing the wheel" means. (Score:2)
There's virtually no past experience on which the wheel was based.
Improving someone else's design, as is often done in programming languages, isn't reinventing the wheel. It's improving it. You're creating the product from scratch, but the idea of the product is taken from the old stuff. Same with the eight bit adder.
How many students create an eight bit adder with absolutely no previous experience in math
Re:Well yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me offer an example. Several years ago, a reporter named Byron Acohido wrote a series of articles about rudder problems in the Boeing 737 (http://flash.uoregon.edu/F97/acohido.html [uoregon.edu]). In these articles, BA identified the rudder as the likely cause of two crashes (he's right), and he outlined his perception of slow response and stonewalling by both Boeing and the FAA. BA went on to win quite a few
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
Bogus. If you do not have an understanding of the basics, then you have not prepared yourself to discover anything new. For those individuals who will be productive, they are working at the same time as they are learning. It means more work, but I've also found they are the best students who have the most potentia
ANSWER: Better Nutrition (Score:2)
So, our bodies and especially our brains are in better shape to handle their tasks. Increasingly, the prime human age for technical and scientific breakthroughs will increase.
The flip side
Re:ANSWER: Better Nutrition (Score:2)
That's a bit of a myth, one of the big problem in today's post-industrial world seems to be how to keep people employed when it takes less and less people to do the same or more work. I've read a couple of good articles (in swedi
You're missing the point, dude (Score:4, Insightful)
Same with science. In order to do research you have to know your tools. Math, physics, chemistry, etc. Four years is not enough to give you these things even on the most basic level. I've spent 6 years getting my M.Sc. degree (not in the US) and I wish I could go back and spend a couple of years more, knowing what I will need in the field.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) I now have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay off, so going back to school is not an option financially.
If you're a student right now, absorb the knowledge as efficiently as you can. Go really deep into subjects, understand them on the most fundamental level. Know how to use your tools. You sure won't be able to recall the most intricate details of what you're studying right now three years down the road, but you'll at least know where to look.
Re:Well yes (Score:2)
We only see what we are prepared to understand. Memorization of facts leads to understanding. When you understand more, you can see more.
These days, knowledge is so specialized, you have to cover a lot of background to even start to see the cutting edge.
Either that (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Either that (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, when I was getting my PhD I worked with John Fenn. He was awarded a share of the 2002 Nobel Prize in chemistry when in his 80's. The interesting thing is that the work that merited this award (ion spray mass chromatography - allowed characterization of large biological molecules and led directly to the development of protease inhibitors) was done by John when he was in his late 70's.
John had a lot of trouble with the administration at Yale at the time because they were trying to force him into retirement. Now of course they are embarresed by the who episode because of Fenn's great accomplishement at the time they were trying to put him out to pasture.
John was a great person to work with too - genuinely cared about his students and an enthsuiastic teacher who did a great job both presenting difficult material as well as acting as a mentor.
I feel greatly priviledged to have known such a man. He is a credit to the human race.
Maleable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maleable (Score:2)
A crisis in the making? (Score:2)
It wouldn't do much good. 8-12 year olds don't know enough to understand the existing knowledge base and extend it to new areas.
And it sounds like even early 20 somethings are having trouble knowing enough to understand and extend ground breaking work. This could represent a serious problem in the making.
If the original "golden age" conjecture is right, then people above a cer
Re:Maleable (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maleable (Score:2)
To run a spellchecker is a trivial effort and prevents people not noticing your thoughts through the "noise" of poor grammar, spelling, and syntax.
I am fortunate enough to have a facility with English that I do not have with math--I am battering my head over linear equatio
Re:Maleable (Score:2)
Grades 1 through 9 could be compressed easily into 2 years of school, instead of wasting them by doing the same thing over and over and over again. Your probably right that
Re:Maleable (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue is that there is a reason that curricula (math in particular) are structured as they are. You know when something that just didn't make sense for the longest time suddenly clicks? That comes
Re:Maleable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maleable (Score:2, Informative)
Then again, maybe you already have.
Re:Maleable (Score:2)
I'm not an educator, and I don't know how to "fix the system," but there's probably a lot more we could do to help smart kids learn at something like their full capability. I suspect a lot of schools/teachers just don't have the time to support the bright kids who could start on
Re:Maleable (Score:2, Interesting)
Here we get into a debate over "basic concepts." I completely agree that some of the ideas from calculus can be taught much earlier: I self-taught intro calc when I was 13 or 14. On the other hand, part of my disagreement with this thread is what I see as a problem in our education system.
See, you can't learn what I would call "the basic concepts of quantum mechanics" until you've
Re:Maleable (Score:2)
When I say "basic concepts" I'm just talking about general exposure to ways in which behavior at the quantum level doesn't match up with the macro world ("here's what happens in the double-slit experiment," "here's what the uncertainty principle generally means," etc.). I don't think Richard Feynman's short book on quantum electrodynamics had a lot of math in it, but it gets
Re:Maleable (Score:2)
Algebra should be taught right along with basic math. There's no excuse for not doing so, and there are at least some schools that do so.
My daughter's class is a multi-grade class (1st through 5th grade), and they are studying electronics at the moment. Many are working on the same sorts of things that I was only exposed to once I got to college.
There are many kids, who while they don
Re:Maleable (Score:2)
Re:Maleable (Score:2)
Life Expectancy taken into account? (Score:2)
Perhaps the percentage of the way through your life that you do your best work has not changed.
And? (Score:2)
The product of a century of achievement? (Score:3, Insightful)
Building on previous work (Score:4, Insightful)
farhanahmed.net [farhanahmed.net]
Re:Building on previous work (Score:2)
Nah, it's that this is the amount of time it takes to fill out all the intellectual property paperwork before you announce... ;-)
My own little theory (Score:2)
Innovate vs Invent. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Innovate vs Invent. (Score:2)
I can't think of a single significant nineteenth invention that wasn't the subject of prolonged and bitter litigation and intense corporate infighting. The old school way was to fight like hell for the control of new technologies until the money men stepped in and forced cooperation through the formation of a cartel.
Re:Innovate vs Invent. (Score:2)
whoops. "ninteenth century invention"
artifact (Score:2)
Well, yes, for sheer intellectual heavy lifting. But that doesn't mean we start forgetting things faster than we learn them.
As the population stays healthier longer, you'd expect experience-based advances to have increasingly older authors.
Re:artifact (Score:2)
I disagree, I think people get smarter in their 30's and are capable of doing more intellectual work in their 30's than 20's.
Hello Captain Obvious (Score:2)
Recognizing acheivement has been pushed back (Score:4, Funny)
Simplest Explanation (Score:2, Insightful)
The prerequisites are so much higher than before (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps even more important, is the amount of technology that is required before cutting-edge research can be done. With the possible exception of algorithm research (even then clusters help), this technology is not available to the general public. The young scientist will only have access to this technology in his/her "training" phase (which in biology is usually most of the 20's) while under the supervision of a more established scientist (who would get most of the credit should a breakthrough occur...). Even after starting up a new lab - it takes a few years to get everything in place and funding set up before you can try out those new ideas etc...
No, it doesn't follow that more time is needed (Score:2)
No, creative research doesn't work that way, at least not in academia, from my experience on both sides of the student/staff fence.
PhD students are no older today than in earlier times, and in their final year, each of the competent ones are the world's peak thinkers in their particular disciplines. It has always been so, and it m
Re:No, it doesn't follow that more time is needed (Score:2)
Late start (Score:3, Interesting)
Marriage (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Marriage (Score:2)
More andmore people are starting their personal lives later. Getting mairried at 30 instead of 20. Longer life spans and such are leading people to not be as rushed to procreate.
Re:Marriage (Score:2)
Good thing we can engineer DNA now.
Re:Marriage (Score:3, Informative)
The way in which academia (Score:4, Insightful)
Marrying later? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Marrying later? (Score:2)
Not really interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
The effect mentioned would simply seem to be a function of longer lifespans and the sorting effect of the education industry.
Of course, I also bet that scientists live longer these days. I also bet that the "scientists making breakthroughs" are coming from a more diverse background now.
Speaking as an inventor (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously -- doesn't this make sense? 100 years ago you went around and dug in some rocks and junk piles and you were discovering stuff. Put a magnifying glass on a drop of pond water and it's a whole new world. Nowadays the _baseline_ for inventions has grown much more than before.
For instance, my invention deals with measuring how well intellectual processes are being performed at an organization. To get to where I'm at, you have to first invent IP, then process control, then computer technology, etc -- and for me to come up with it I had to understand enough of that previous work to mutate it into something useful for people.
What concerns me is that with more and more specialization, there seems to be a dearth of "cross pollenization" among sciences. Sure, there are specific programs, but it's almost impossible to find people with a truly broad and moderately deep general knowledge of sciences. My opinion only -- we've got a lot of brillant people but lack enough people who think outside the box and put the pieces together.
Reason why... (Score:2)
Schools should be hammering away the three R's... reading, writing, and arithmatic.
Instead, kids are in college learning what should be taught in
Re:Reason why... (Score:2)
Is it just me, or does Slashdot have this same conversation over and over again? I don't think either colleges or highschools want it any other way, which is sad. Education is backwards because the money is at the wrong end.
And dare I say, class size has something to do with it?
Yes, and integration and Federal control over schools has a lot to do with it as well. Separating students by intelligence is frowned upon; the "smart" classes
It's time... (Score:5, Funny)
Peak in their 20's? Wrong! (Score:2)
I was pretty sure when I read the write-up on
Great- a $5 article! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't the guy do a little more research to post some other like articles that we don't have to pay for?
Well, I guess no one RTFAs anyway so maybe this isn't any different.
Not surprising (Score:2)
lots of reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
I think there's definitely a certain type of mathematical/scientific work that is most likely to be done by someone very young. A classic example would be the three groundbreaking papers Einstein published in 1905, at the age of 26. Nobody else had the guts or the mental flexibility to come up with relativity, or the photon theory.
But then again, you have, say, Andrew Wiles, who proved Fermat's last theorem. That's a project that took many years of intense work in total solitude, and a young person just wouldn't be able to do it without committing professional suicide -- Wiles could do it because he had tenure, and could afford to fail.
Logic vs. Intuition (Score:2, Insightful)
not necessarily! (Score:2)
In other news.... (Score:2, Funny)
Collaborations + Research Labs (Score:2, Insightful)
The other main reason is these days science requires big resources to test an idea or investigate a concept. For example 1984 Physics Nobel prize was given to Carlo Rubbia and Simon Van der Meer for "their decisive contributions to the large project, which led to the discovery of the field particles W and
It makes sense (Score:2)
To get into a zone where someone can be innovative s/he needs to educated, needs to have had experience and have formed judgment.
It seems that once a person is in this zone s/he will stay there until judgment from experience deteriorates into rigid thinking ( "set in their ways" ) or the raw physical health of their brain declines.
I can't speak to the former issue, but in regards to the later issue there seems to be more options for staying vital longer for the person who is willing to t
EVERYBODY is six years older now! (Score:2)
What I'm really waiting for is the first 40+ Miss Universe. You KNOW it's going to happen...
Re:Because... (Score:2)
Re:Because... (Score:2)
Fame and when you actually do the great work totally independent. For example JW Gibbs Jr was not at all understood in his lifetime - now he is being honored on a US stamp along with von Nuemann, Feynmann and McClintoch.
In the case of Einstien, most of his great work was done when he was quite young. Some of his early ideas about relativity trace to concepts that he was thinkig about as early as age 16.
BTW, 2005 is the 100th
Re:Because... (Score:2)
Re:Because... (Score:4, Interesting)
Euler [wikipedia.org] had thirteen children with three surviving sons (not named George) and two daughters surviving.
Thus, the whole 'vision thing' is vastly over-rated.
Re:No duh (Score:2)